In contrast, ocean-type chinook salmon stocks in

the lower and mid-Columbia River areas of the

EEIS area are relatively strong, though much of

their range has been lost due to hydroelectric

development and many stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries.

As a result of the considerations described above,

none of the alternatives would be expected to

meet the habitat needs of the ocean-type chinook

salmon, manage perceived threats, nor ensure persistence of the populations. Alternatives 6 and 7

have the most conservative approach to conserving and restoring watersheds. These alternatives

might result in some benefit to ocean-type chinook salmon if actions tend to improve water

quality and quantity on Federal lands through

reductions in road densities, reduced timber harvest, reduced grazing, and adequate protection of

RHCAs and RMAs (tables 3.11 and 3.20). It is

uncertain if these effects would be sufficient to

improve population persistence, however. The

remainder of the alternatives (that is, Alternatives

1-5) would likely not benefit ocean-type chinook

salmon because these alternatives continue landdisturbing activities and do not emphasize restoration of degraded mainstem habitats. In summary,

none of the alternatives can be expected to ensure

the persistence of ocean-type chinook salmon, and

two have uncertain benefits. To ensure persistence,

a comprehensive approach is needed that addresses the myriad factors that affect the species, both

on and off of Federal lands.

Step 3: Evaluation of Effects

on Sensitive Species

General Assumptions and

Information Base

We made three general assumptions in addition to

those mentioned above:

1. Management strategies for sensitive fishes with

restricted, narrowly endemic distributions are

more appropriately described at a fine scale

involving site-specific agreements and local

land-use planning. Analyses of strategies at the

broader scale, such as the ICBEMP preliminary

draft EIS alternatives, are inappropriate for such

species.

2. Nothing is designed or implied in the preliminary draft EIS alternatives that precludes or

nullifies management agreements, recovery

plans, biological opinions, or other documents

that provide site-specific or species-specific

strategies for sensitive, endemic taxa. In other

words, whatever protections that are in place

for sensitive species at local planning levels will

remain in effect and applicable provisions contained in preliminary draft EIS alternatives will

only add to existing measures, not substitute for

them.

3. Species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act receive

protection through Section 7 requirements,

existing biological opinions, and critical habitat

designations despite which preliminary draft

EIS alternative is chosen.

To aid in our evaluation, we prepared summary

tables, similar to those prepared for the key

salmonids, that show levels of activity within the

reported range of each species (table 3.27), mean

values for selected variables across the historical

and current range (table 3.28), and ownership and

management designations (table 3.29). The effects

of alternatives on 18 rare and sensitive fishes are

summarized in table 3.30 by rating their ability to

provide sufficient protection to halt further

declines.

Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)

The distributional data for Pacific lamprey spawning and rearing areas are lacking in some regions.

In general, our knowledge of this species precludes

evaluation except that we believe juvenile steelhead approximate the distribution and habitat

requirements of Pacific lamprey. We assume that

the evaluation of alternatives for steelhead would

serve as an appropriate proxy for Pacific lamprey.

504 Aquatics
Table 3.27. Forest and range management activities and distribution of select sensitive species. Estimates

represent the percentage of the reported distribution predicted to experience the activity per decade.

Estimates are based on the allocation of activities for alternatives in the preliminary draft EISs, and on the

distributions of sensitive species as defined in Lee and others (1996).

Forest Activity

Species

Pacific lamprey

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Pygymy whitefish

Oregon Lakes tui chub

Leatherside chub

Alt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

6.6

2.7

4.8

4.8

4.8

2.0

1.6

9.0

2.3

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.6

4.4

5.2

5.2

6.8

4.3

2.0

9.0

2.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

0.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

1.1

0.4

0.3

Thinning

3.0

2.3

4.0

5.1

4.6

4.5

2.3

4.5

4.3

6.8

7.0

7.0

6.8

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

2.7

4.8

5.3

5.1

4.8

1.5

4.5

4.5

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

4.5

0.2

0.2

1.1

1.1

0.7

1.1

0.2

Watershed

Restoration

1.2

2.3

2.3

3.7

3.2

3.2

1.2

1.5

1.7

1.7

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

2.8

2.8

3.8

2.8

3.8

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

Prescribed

Burning

2.0

2.0

4.0

7.3

5.5

6.7

3.3

2.5

2.5

2.8

9.8

7.0

9.8

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.5

4.8

7.9

3.9

7.0

5.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

10.0

7.0

10.0

2.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

6.4

12.0

11.7

12.0

10.5

12.3

15.7

7.3

14.0

14.0

14.0

12.3

14.0

16.0

3.0

9.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

16.0

8.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

3.9

10.1

7.8

10.1

10.1

12.8

16.0

Riparian

Restoration

1.2

1.2

18.2

37.2

20.6

24.7

10.2

1.2

1.2

27.5

38.0

11.7

11.7

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

0.8

0.8

16.8

26.4

0.8

10.4

0.8

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

32.3

32.3

18.2

Aquatics 5Q5
Table 3.27 (continued)

Forest Activity

Species

Lost River sucker

Warner sucker

Goose Lake sucker

Shortnose sucker

Klamath largescale sucker

Wood River bridgelip

sucker

Alt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

9.0

4.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.0

2.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

9.0

3.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

9.0

2.6

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

2.4

0.8

1.0

1.0

2.8

1.0

0.8

Thinning

4.5

3.0

5.8

7.0

7.0

5.8

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.5

4.5

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

4.5

4.5

3.8

6.4

7.0

7.0

6.4

3.8

4.5

4.0

6.6

7.0

7.0

6.6

4.0

0.6

0.6

2.8

2.8

1.8

2.8

0.6

Watershed

Restoration

1.5

2.8

2.8

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

1.5

2.1

2.1

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

1.5

1.9

1.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Prescribed

Burning

2.5

2.5

4.8

8.5

7.0

8.5

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

10.0

7.0

10.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.6

9.3

7.0

9.3

3.6

2.5

2.5

3.2

9.5

7.0

9.5

3.2

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

8.3

15.1

15.1

15.1

14.4

15.1

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

3.0

9.0

16.0

8.1

15.0

15.0

15.0

14.1

15.0

16.0

6.6

13.2

13.2

13.2

10.7

13.2

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

Riparian

Restoration

1.2

1.2

33.4

38.0

5.8

5.8

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

32.5

38.0

6.7

6.7

1.2

1.2

1.2

23.1

38.0

16.2

16.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

906 * Aquatics
Table 3.27 (continued)

Forest Activity

Species

Torrent sculpin

Shorthead sculpin

Slender sculpin

Margined sculpin

Wood River sculpin

Malheur sculpin

Alt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Harvest

7.3

4.1

5.7

5.7

7.2

4.2

1.6

6.3

3.2

4.8

4.8

6.0

3.6

1.8

9.0

3.3

7.0

7.0

7.0

2.5

2.0

3.5

0.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

1.0

0.8

3.4

1.1

1.4

1.4

3.9

1.4

1.1

2.7

0.6

2.1

2.1

2.1

0.8

0.6

Thinning

3.6

3.2

5.4

5.8

5.7

5.4

1.8

3.1

2.9

4.7

5.0

4.7

4.9

2.0

4.5

3.5

6.2

7.0

7.0

6.2

3.5

1.8

1.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

1.8

0.8

0.8

3.9

3.9

2.5

3.9

0.8

1.4

1.4

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

1.4

Watershed

Restoration

1.2

1.6

1.6

3.2

2.0

3.2

1.2

1.4

2.2

2.2

3.6

2.7

3.4

1.4

1.5

2.3

2.3

4.0

4.0

4.0

1.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

0.6

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.5

Prescribed

Burning

2.1

2.1

2.7

6.3

3.6

6.3

5.0

2.3

2.3

3.7

7.8

4.1

7.0

4.1

2.5

2.5

4.0

9.0

7.0

9.0

4.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

3.9

2.7

3.9

1.0

1.4

1.4

1.4

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

3.0

2.1

3.0

0.8

Range Activity

Livestock

Management

3.4

7.5

7.0

7.5

7.0

8.0

10.1

3.9

7.8

6.8

7.8

7.3

9.0

10.2

9.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

3.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

16.0

Riparian

Restoration

0.8

0.8

15.5

24.1

14.7

14.7

8.9

0.8

0.8

20.2

24.3

13.5

14.6

4.3

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

1.2

1.2

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

38.0

Aquatics 50?
Table 3.28. Means for landscape variables associated with the historical range of 17 select sensitive species. 

and the summary of landscape variables are as defined in Lee and others (1996).

Species

Goose Lake sucker

Klamath largescale sucker

Warner sucker

Short nose sucker

Lost River sucker

Malheuer sucker

Shorthead sculpin

Wood River sculpin

Margined sculpin

Torrent sculpin

Range

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

Number of

watersheds

11

4

7

39

7

32

20

12

8

26

7

19

13

6

7

43

10

33

784

712

72

34

9

25

37

19

18

459

369

90

Variables

anadac' dampass*

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.49

0.53

0.15

0

0

0

0.81

0.82

0.81

0.53

0.57

0.38

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.11

3.35

0.77

0

0

0

4.25

3.93

4.55

3.29

3.68

1.95

drnden

3

1.15

0.98

1.22

0.61

0.78

0.57

1.09

1.11

1.07

0.58

0.26

0.64

0.48

0.44

0.51

1.09

1.01

1.13

1.23

1.24

1.18

1.27

1.14

1.32

1.28

1.27

1.29

1.17

1.19

1.11

elev

4

5400

5240

5476

4912

5184

4846

5321

5371

5259

4837

4535

4885

4674

4718

4641

4924

5006

4885

4718

4697

4915

5724

4725

6183

2178

1891

2441

3890

3947

3689

mtemp

5

6.59

6.74

6.53

6.41

5.83

6.55

6.84

6.64

7.07

6.61

7.75

6.43

7.08

7.53

6.73

6.52

7.05

6.27

5.24

5.30

4.73

4.58

5.64

4.24

9.22

9.75

8.74

6.34

6.31

6.43

pprecip

53

519

536

565

520

577

431

446

411

538

394

56

488

419

542

386

418

370

753

744

840

441

348

484

536

487

580

680

673

703
Table 3.28 (continued)

O

CO

Species

Slender sculpin

Oregon Lakes tui chub

Leatherside chub

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey

Pacific lamprey

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Pygmy whitefish

Range

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

Number of

watersheds

13

5

8

3

0

3

115

102

13

14

0

14

1317

1132

185

8

6

2

34

11

23

Variables

anadac

1

 dampass

2

0

0

0

0

—

0

0

0

0

0

—

0

0.53

0.46

0.91

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

—

0

0

0

0

0

—

0

3.27

2.99

4.78

0

0

0

0

0

0

drnden

3

0.63

0.65

0.62

0.96

—

0.96

1.25

1.25

1.21

0.93

—

0.93

1.23

1.25

1.13

1.23

1.18

1.44

0.96

0.86

1.02

eleV

4830

4729

4873

4835

—

4835

6026

6124

5285

5146

—

5146

4295

4440

3511

5286

5153

5853

3558

2772

3953

mtemp

5

6.33

6.66

6.20

7.41

—

7.41

5.02

4.93

5.95

6.01

—

6.01

6.46

6.35

7.06

7.82

7.90

7.47

5.57

6.81

4.94

pprecip

542

282

650

389

—

389

512

529

389

618

—

618

588

593

562

305

300

326

809

542

943

'anadac - access for anadromous fish (0 = no; 1 = yes).

'dampass - number of intervening dams.

'drnden - drainage density (mi/mi

2

).

Vlev - mean elevation (ft).

'mtemp - mean annual temperature.

'pprecip - mean annual precipitation.

'rdmeanO - mean road density.

"slope — area weighted average midslope.

'hucoder - number of upstream 6th-code hydrologic units.
Table 3.29. Summary of current reported distributions of 17 select sensitive species versus ownership and land 

each watershed. The data represent a summary of the assemblage database by management cluster as defined i

I

O

Species

Goose Lake sucker

Klamath largescale sucker

Warner sucker

Shortnose sculpin

Lost River sculpin

Malheur sculpin

Shorthead sculpin

Wood River sculpin

Margined sculpin

Torrent sculpin

Range

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

Number of

watersheds

11

4

7

39

7

32

20

12

8

26

7

19

13

6

7

43

10

33

784

712

72

34

9

25

37

19

18

459

369

90

Management Clusters'

BR

0

0

0

0.027

0

0.033

0.690

0.800

0.550

0.039

0

0.045

0.071

0.160

0

0.500

0.570

0.460

0.083

0.083

0.085

0.300

0.230

0.340

0

0

0

0.041

0.025

0.098

FG

0

0

0

0.006

0

0.008

0

0

0

0.009

0

0.011

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.077

0.071

0.13

0.190

0

0.280

0.036

0.033

0.039

0.033

0.033

0.034

FH

0.320

0.310

0.320

0.300

0.440

0.270

0.056

0.100

0

0.180

0

0.210

0.085

0.160

0.026

0.240

0.046

0.330

0.090

0.085

0.140

0.031

0

0.045

0.036

0

0.068

0.076

0.069

0.100

FM

0

0

0

0.037

0

0.046

0

0

0

0.047

0.025

0.051

0.011

0

0.020

0

0

0

0.170

0.170

0.190

0

0

0

0.013

0

0.026

0.150

0.130

0.260

FW

0

0

0

0.016

0

0.020

0

0

0

0.023

0

0.027

0.042

0

0.075

0

0

0

0.140

0.140

0.110

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.100

0.120

0.026

NP

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.014

0.011

0.047

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.1

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.0

0

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.1
Table 3.29 (continued)

.Q

C

0)

rto'

Species

Slender sculpin

Oregon Lakes tui chub

Leatherside chub

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey

Pacific lamprey

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Pygmy whitefish

Range

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

historical

current absent

current present

Number of

watersheds

13

5

8

3

0

3

115

102

13

14

0

14

1317

1132

185

8

6

2

34

11

23

Management Clusters'

BR

0

0

0

0.650

0

0.650

0.440

0.460

0.350

0

0

0

0.200

0.240

0.003

0.900

0.880

1

0

0

0

FG

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.085

0.079

0.130

0

0

0

0.068

0.077

0.022

0

0

0

0.035

0.100

0

FH

0.210

0.170

0.230

0

0

0

0.056

0.056

0.055

0.280

0

0.280

0.110

0.110

0.120

0

0

0

0.010

0.029

0

FM

0.029

0.043

0.023

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.015

0

0.015

0.058

0.055

0.072

0

0

0

0.240

0.038

0.340

FW

0.041

0

0.058

0

0

0

0.065

0.074

0

0.048

0

0.048

0.090

0.081

0.140

0

0

0

0.024

0

0.037

NP

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.086

0.097

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.019

0

0.029

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.0

'BR = BLM rangelands; FG = FS forest and rangeland, moderate impact, grazed; FH = FS forest, high impact, grazed; FM = FS forest, high-moderate i

wilderness; NP = NFS forestland; PA = Private agriculture; PF = Private land and FS forestland; PR = Private and BLM rangeland; TL = Tribal lands.
Table 3.30. Evaluation of effects of alternatives on rare and sensitive fishes. The table answers the question, "Will the alternative provide sufficient protection to prevent declines in habitats and populations of

18 rare and sensitive fish species?"

Species

Pygmy whitefish

Shortnose sucker, Lost River

sucker, Klamath largescale

sucker, Slender sculpin1

Warner sucker, Redband trout2

Wood River sculpin,

Wood River bridgelip sucker4

Malheur sculpin,

Redband trout5

Pacific lamprey

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey

Goose Lake sucker

Torrent sculpin

Shorthead sculpin

Margined sculpin

Lahontan cutthroat trout

Oregon Lakes tui chub

Leatherside chub

Proxy for Analysis

None

None

None

None

None

Juvenile steelhead

trout

Goose Lake sucker,

Redband trout1

Redband trout

Westslope cutthroat

Bull trout

Redband trout

AIM

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Alt 2

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

U

3

No

No

No

No

AK3

Yes

Yes

U

3

Yes

U

3

No

UV

U

3

No

No

U

3

Alt 4

Yes

Yes

U

3

Yes

U

3

U

3

U

3

U

3

No

U

3

U

3

AltS

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Alt 6

Yes

Yes

U

3

Yes

U

3

Yes

U

3

U

3

U

3

U

3

U

3

Alt?

Yes

Yes

U

3

Yes

U

3

U3

U

3

U

3

Yes

U

3

Yes

Protected under the ESA, Section 7, regardless of the alternative.

Information on current distributions and status of these species was

insufficient for analysis.

1

 Klamath Basin Rare and Sensitive Fishes.

2Occur in the Warner Basin.

3

 U = Uncertain.

4

 Wood River Sensitive Fishes.

5

 Occur in the Harney Basin.

Refer to "Findings by Species, Steelhead" section

of this chapter for a discussion of how alternatives

would affect Pacific lamprey. Within the assessment area, Pacific lamprey and steelhead are

believed to spawn in many of the same streams

and the young of both species utilize similar rearing streams and would respond similarly to management activities. Strongholds for steelhead also

are believed to be important areas for lamprey. As

both species are anadromous, both are affected by

dams and hydroelectric operations. Both species

are harvested, although lampreys are taken as

ammocoetes for bait and by Native Americans for

ceremonial purposes. The fringe population of

Pacific lampreys noted in the Klamath Basin may

represent Klamath lampreys (Lampetra similis) or

a land-locked form of Pacific lamprey. Moyle and

others (1995) noted substantial confusion regarding lamprey taxonomy and identification in the

Klamath Basin.

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey (Lampetra

lethophaga)

The Pit-Klamath brook lamprey is a non-parasitic

lamprey native to the Upper Klamath Basin and

812 Aquatics
upper Pit River (such as the Goose Lake Basin).

This non-anadromous species completes its life

cycle in small streams and moderate-size rivers.

Relatively little is known about its distribution and

life history requirements, but we assume them to

be similar to other native, stream-dwelling fishes

within this area. Based on distribution, two proxies

would be appropriate for this species: Klamath

Basin sensitive fishes for that portion of the PitKlamath brook lamprey's range in the Klamath

Basin, and the Goose Lake sucker and redband

trout for that portion of the lamprey's range in the

Goose Lake Basin. Refer to "General Assumptions

and Information Base", "Klamath Basin rare and

sensitive fishes", and "Goose Lake sucker and redband trout in the Goose Lake basin" sections for a

discussion of how alternatives would affect the PitKlamath brook lamprey. It is uncertain whether

any alternative would prevent declines in populations and habitats of this species; Alternatives 1

and 5 would not prevent declines.

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus

clarki henshawi)

Populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout within

the assessment area comprise the northern fringe

of the distribution of this subspecies. Populations

in Willow and Whitehorse Creeks within the

assessment area were long-considered to comprise

a separate subspecies and should be accorded special emphasis because of their long isolation from

other Lahontan cutthroat trout and their occurrence in the most northerly native habitats of the

subspecies. Populations in Washington, and in

Oregon's Mann Lake are introduced, are of uncertain genetic purity, and are not considered further

for purposes of this analysis. The subspecies is listed as threatened pursuant to the ESA throughout

its range. Populations within the assessment area

have received special emphasis through ESA

Section 7 consultation, particularly as pertaining

to effects of livestock grazing, which comprises the

principal threat in addition to non-native trout

introductions. Because the preliminary draft EIS

alternatives would provide little protection beyond

that already stipulated in Section 7 biological

opinions and recovery planning documents, and

because Section 7 requirements would remain in

place regardless of the alternative selected, we

believe that the Lahontan cutthroat trout in the

assessment area would not be adversely affected

by the selection of a preliminary draft EIS

alternative.

Pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri)

Pygmy whitefish are widely distributed in deep

lakes and coldwater streams in the northern,

glaciated portions of the Columbia River Basin.

They often occur in lakes, but may move to

smaller tributary streams for spawning. Water

quality and maintenance of instream flows in tributary streams are the primary factors needed to

maintain the species. Unlike many of the sensitive

fishes in our analysis, we believe that the lake

habitats of pygmy whitefish are less likely to be

negatively impacted by management activities on

FS- or BLM-administered lands. Only 33 percent

of existing populations occur on FS- or BLMadministered lands (table 3.29). In general, we

believe that all alternatives offer at least minimal

protections needed by this species. Alternatives 1

and 5 would offer less protection than other alternatives because of greater timber harvests and

road construction associated with these alternatives (table 3.27). Nonetheless, we believe that

populations can persist with implementation of

any alternative.

Oregon Lakes tui chub (Gila bicolor

oregonensis)

The Oregon Lakes tui chub is endemic to

Oregon's Abert Lake Basin, including the

Chewaucan River and XL Spring. Agricultural

practices, livestock grazing, and introductions of

non-native species are the primary factors affecting this species. Unfortunately, no recent information is available on population status. Tui chubs in

nearby Summer Lake Basin have hybridized with

chubs from outside the basin, which were presumably introduced as bait fish for introduced rainbow trout. The Summer Basin tui chub, therefore,

Aquatics S13
is considered to be at high risk of extinction. As

tui chub populations in the Chewaucan River

occur below trout fisheries, the possibility exists

for genetic contamination from introduced fish.

The population at XL Spring is on private land

and its status is unknown, but we presume it

would not be affected by the preliminary draft

EIS alternatives. With so little information available, we concluded that an evaluation of alternatives for the Oregon Lake tui chub was not possible at this time.

Leatherside chub (Gila copei)

Within the assessment area, the leatherside chub

has been reported from the 1940s to the 1970s

in widely-scattered areas of the Upper Snake and

Big Wood drainages in Idaho. More recent surveys

conducted in 1995 (Belk and Wilson 1995)

found leatherside chubs in the Goose Creek

drainage south of Hurley, Idaho, but otherwise

no recent collections are known. Because of the

scarcity of distribution data and habitatrequirement data, we did not believe that there

was sufficient information to perform an analysis

of alternatives for this species.

Klamath Basin rare and sensitive fishes

Because of similar distributions, habitat requirements, and/or threats, the following Klamath

Basin fishes were considered as one group for our

analysis: shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris),

Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus), Klamath

largescale sucker (Catostomus snyderi), and slender

sculpin (Cottus tenuis). The endangered shortnose

and Lost River suckers are restricted primarily to

Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes except for

spawning runs into tributary streams. The

Klamath largescale sucker occupies Upper

Klamath and Agency Lakes, but also may occur in

a resident stream form, inhabiting larger streams

such as the Sprague, Sycan, Wood, and Williamson Rivers. The slender sculpin occurs in the same

habitats as the catostomids as well as some smaller

streams in the Upper Klamath Basin. For considerations of land management activities, all of these

taxa are affected by deteriorating water quality in

streams and downstream lake habitats. Timber

harvesting and associated road-building activities,

livestock grazing, and riparian area management

are among the primary factors influencing water

quality in streams and lakes of the Klamath

Basin.

Alternatives 1 through 7—Under Alternative 1

we believe that the Klamath Basin sensitive fishes

would continue to decline and would face increasing deterioration of water quality throughout the

basin. Timber harvesting and livestock grazing,

both of which contribute to deterioration of water

quality in the basin, would remain at relatively

high levels under Alternative 1. Alternative 2

would tend to maintain existing conditions with

little deterioration of habitat quality, but also with

little improvement because of low emphasis on

restoration efforts. The net impacts of Alternative

3 would be similar to Alternative 2, although

Alternative 3 proposes moderate tree harvest and

high emphasis on restoration activities. Alternative

4 was rated as the best for the sensitive Klamath

Basin fishes because this alternative included the

highest levels of restoration activities. Aquatic and

riparian habitats in the Klamath Basin have deteriorated substantially from overgrazing by livestock

and high levels of timber harvest and road construction. Increased protection and restoration

activities are both vital for long-term persistence of

sensitive fish species. Restoration efforts would

likely provide benefits for endangered and sensitive

fishes in the Klamath Basin. Under Alternative 5,

we would anticipate continued decline and deterioration of water quality because of moderate to high

levels of resource use and low emphasis on restoration programs. For Alternative 5, activities such as

livestock grazing, road building, and timber harvesting would be more likely to contribute to the

deterioration of water quality given the protection

of narrower riparian zones under this alternative.

For Alternative 6, we would anticipate results similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 because of lower

resource use. Alternative 6 also includes low levels

of restoration activities, which results in a lower

rating than Alternative 4. Alternative 7 would

514 Aquatics
result in increased protection of existing habitats

and would include a higher level of livestock management as well as a 50 percent reduction in

AUMs which should result in a significant reduction in grazing impacts. Overall, Alternative 7 was

rated quite high because the broader riparian zones

within this alternative's aquatic conservation strategy would provide substantial protection against

sediment entering streams and contribute to deterioration of water quality in the Klamath Basin.

Goose Lake sucker (Catostomus occidentalis

lacusanserinus) and redband trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.) in the Goose

Lake Basin

Redband trout in the Goose Lake Basin are a

good proxy for the Goose Lake sucker. Both sensitive fishes occur in Goose Lake, tributary streams,

and to a lesser extent, in reservoirs in the Goose

Lake Basin. Historically, populations of the Goose

Lake sucker and redband trout ascended larger

streams tributary to Goose Lake in the spring during spawning runs. Both fishes are impacted by

livestock grazing, riparian management, and overall water quality. Habitats for both fishes are highly degraded compared to historical conditions.

Rangeland management issues are of primary concern for both taxa. Redband trout in the Goose

Lake Basin also occur in slightly higher elevation

streams than do the Goose Lake suckers and,

therefore, may be adversely affected by timber

harvest and road construction as well.

Alternatives 1 through 7—Under Alternative

1, conditions would continue to deteriorate. This

alternative offers the least protection for rangeland

riparian habitats because AUMs would remain relatively high compared to that of other alternatives. Timber harvest levels in Alternative 1 would

remain high, negatively affecting headwater populations and downstream water quality (table 3.27).

Existing riparian management zones and buffer

widths have not proven to be adequate in reducing disturbances from livestock grazing, road

building, and timber harvesting. Alternative 2 was

rated fair because of increased riparian area protection, but still below most alternatives. Riparian

habitat conservation areas for Alternative 2 offer

improved protection from adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing when compared to

existing conditions. The strength of Alternative 2

is in protection with little emphasis on restoration

activities. Alternative 3 also would result in a

gradual improvement over existing conditions

because of more emphasis on restoration activities

and improved riparian zone management through

the aquatic conservation strategy. Alternatives 4

and 6 were rated the same and considerably above

existing conditions. The higher .ratings were warranted because of slightly lower AUMs and slightly higher levels of restoration. For both of these

alternatives, improved riparian zone management

would decrease impacts associated with livestock

grazing. Alternative 5 was rated poorly because of

high livestock grazing and little restoration. For

Alternative 5, activities such'as livestock grazing,

road building, and timber harvesting would be

more likely to contribute to deterioration of water

quality given the narrower protection of riparian

zones described for this alternative. Although

Alternative 7 would result in greatest reduction in

AUMs and most restrictive riparian management

standards and guidelines, the effect on the Goose

Lake sucker is uncertain as the models for redband trout indicate declines in the Goose Lake

Basin. In general, riparian areas would receive the

greatest protection under this alternative and have

the potential to quickly respond with improved

habitat conditions.

Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis)

and redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss

ssp.) in the Warner Basin

The Warner sucker, a threatened species pursuant

to the ESA, occupies lake and stream habitats in

Oregon's Warner Basin. A small portion of the

species range also extends into the California portion of the basin. All remaining populations of the

species primarily occur at lower elevations in the

basin (table 3.28), and are affected by livestock

grazing, riparian area management, and agriculAquatics
rural practices. Approximately 55 percent of the

current populations are on BLM-administered

rangelands (table 3.29). Lake habitats are dominated by introduced species, which pose additional problems by preying on larval and juvenile

Warner suckers. Historical and current distributions of the Warner sucker are largely sympatric

with the redband trout native to the Warner

Basin, although in one or two localities, redband

trout extend their distribution further into headwater areas. We believe that the Warner sucker

and Warner Basin form of redband trout can be

analyzed together for the purposes of this panel.

Alternatives 1 through 7—Alternative 1 would

continue declines of the Warner sucker and redband trout because of relatively high levels of livestock grazing, less emphasis on livestock management, and little riparian restoration. While the

number of AUMs would decrease in all alternatives, the least declines are associated with

Alternatives 1 and 5, with the greatest decrease in

AUMs occurring with Alternative 7. According to

our analysis (table 3.27), the treatment level for

livestock management is smallest for Alternative

1, moderate for Alternatives 2 to 6, and highest

for Alternative 7. A higher level of livestock management should result in better management of

grazing and therefore result in fewer impacts to

critical riparian habitats. Our analysis of riparian

restoration activities (table 3.27) indicates that

Alternatives 1 and 2 include very little emphasis

on riparian restoration, with high levels of riparian restoration occurring in Alternatives 3 to 7.

Overall, Alternative 2 rated slightly higher than

current conditions because of improved riparian

management and a higher level of livestock management. Alternative 3 also rated higher than

existing conditions because of a much greater

emphasis on riparian restoration. Riparian areas

quickly improve in condition with better protection and restoration programs. Alternatives 4 and

6 were rated the same and considerably above

existing conditions. The higher ratings were warranted because of slightly lower AUMs and slightly higher levels of restoration. Alternative 5 was

rated poorly because of high livestock grazing. As

noted in other discussions, narrower riparian

management zones associated with this alternative

would be more likely to result in loss of riparian

function given higher livestock use. We believe

that Alternative 7 would result in the best conditions for the Warner sucker and redband trout in

the Warner Basin because this alternative would

result in the greatest reduction in AUMs and the

most restrictive riparian management standards

and guidelines. As a result, riparian areas would

receive the greatest protection under this alternative and should quickly respond with improved

habitat conditions. Still, we are uncertain that this

alternative would prevent declines in habitats and

populations of the Warner sucker.

Wood River sensitive fishes

The Wood River sculpin (Cottus leiopomus) and

Wood River bridgelip sucker (Catostomus

columbianus hubbsi) are endemic to rivers and

streams in Idaho's Big Wood and Little Wood

drainages. Although precise distribution information is lacking for the suckers, both species appear

to prefer fast-flowing stream and river habitats of

high quality. Their ranges are believed to be sympatric over much of the Wood River Basin. Key

factors influencing their status include diversions

and channelization, loss of riparian habitats,

development of floodplains, overgrazing by livestock, and reduced water quality. Approximately

67 percent of existing populations of both fishes

occur on FS- or BLM-administered lands (table

3.29). Because of similar ranges, habitat requirements, and threats, we considered both taxa to be

subject to the same evaluation of alternatives.

Alternatives 1 through 7—For all alternatives,

activities that substantially improve riparian habitat conditions will do the most for persistence of

these fishes on Federal lands. Timber harvest and

roads will influence water quality, but will not be

as important as grazing and riparian management

practices for these species that occur in lowerelevation portions of the drainages. Under Alternative 1, we believe that many of the factors that

have resulted in declines of these taxa would

Aquatics
continue. Timber harvest levels and grazing levels

would be highest under this alternative, which

would contribute to continued loss of riparian

function and reduced water quality. For Alternative 2, timber harvest would be the lowest of any

alternatives (only Alternative 7 is equally low) and

levels of livestock management would be moderate (Alternatives 2 through 6 would have equal

levels of livestock management activities, see table

3.27). Riparian restoration activities would be low

for Alternative 2. Overall, conditions for Wood

River sensitive fishes should improve under

Alternative 2 compared to existing conditions.

Habitat conditions under Alternative 3 also

should improve compared to existing conditions,

but with slightly more timber harvest and riparian

restoration activities. Management under Alternatives 4 and 6 also should improve conditions compared to existing habitat quality. Both Alternatives

4 and 6 should result in improvements for these

sensitive fishes. We believe that under Alternative

5, impacts of livestock grazing and timber harvest

would continue to cause problems and loss of

habitat quality. The combination of narrow riparian management zones with relatively high levels

of livestock grazing and timber harvest would be

detrimental to these fishes. Overall, trends of sensitive fishes would be similar between Alternative

5 and existing conditions. Alternative 7 would

have lowest AUMs and highest levels of livestock

management activities of any alternative, which

would result in the highest relative improvement

of riparian conditions. Alternative 7 also would

have the lowest timber harvest levels. Overall,

Alternative 7 would be the most beneficial for

these species, although their status also should

improve under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Malheur sculpin (Cottus bairdi ssp.) and

redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.)

in the Harney Basin

The Malheur sculpin is endemic to streams in

Oregon's Harney Basin. This sculpin requires

coolwater streams of high quality. High levels of

sediments are not tolerated. Within Harney Basin,

the distribution of the Malheur sculpin is sympatric with that of the redband trout. Both the

Malheur sculpin and redband trout are adversely

affected by activities that increase water temperature, turbidity, and sediment loads. Livestock

grazing, road building, and timber harvesting are

primary activities affecting these taxa on FS- and

BLM-administered lands. Because of similarity in

distribution, habitat requirements, and threats, we

considered both taxa to be subject to the same

evaluation of alternatives. The form of redband

trout in Harney Basin is often considered to be

distinct because of its extended isolation from

other stocks.

Alternatives 1 through 7—Under Alternative 1

we believe that conditions for the Malheur

sculpin and redband trout would continue to

deteriorate and that this alternative offers the

least protection for rangeland riparian habitats

because AUMs would only decrease slightly compared to that of other alternatives. Alternative 1

also includes the highest level of timber harvest of

any alternative within the range of the Malheur

sculpin (table 3.27). Alternative 2 is rated higher

than existing conditions because of increased

riparian area protection and reduced timber harvest. We believe that Alternative 3 also would

result in improvements from existing conditions

because of more emphasis on riparian restoration

activities. Alternatives 4 and 6 were rated the

same and much above existing conditions. The

higher ratings were warranted because of slightly

lower AUMs and slightly higher levels of restoration. Alternative 5 was rated lower because of

higher levels of livestock grazing. As noted in discussions of other sensitive fishes, the narrower

riparian management areas associated with

Alternative 5 coupled with relatively high levels

of livestock grazing would decrease proper functioning condition of riparian areas. We believe

that Alternative 7 would result in the best conditions for the Harney Basin sensitive fishes

because it would result in the greatest reduction

in AUMs, lowest timber harvest levels, highest

level of livestock management, and most restrictive riparian management standards and guidelines. As a result, riparian areas would receive the

Aquatics 517
greatest protection under this alternative and

should quickly respond with improved habitat

conditions. All Alternatives except 1 and 5 should

improve conditions for these sensitive fishes, yet

the ability of even the most protective alternatives

to prevent declines in habitats and populations

remains uncertain.

Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus]

Historically, torrent sculpin were widely distributed within the Columbia River drainage. Many

of the cold, clear waters preferred by the torrent

sculpin and other species (such as, shorthead

sculpin, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and

redband trout) have been degraded by timber harvest and associated road construction. Although

the current distribution of torrent sculpin clearly

has declined, our knowledge is limited because in

much of the assessment area, sculpins often are

reported genetically as Cottus sp. with little attention paid to specific identification. The species

prefers coldwater streams and smaller rivers, and

typically occurs at lower elevations than the shorthead sculpin. Approximately 52 percent of the

existing populations occur on FS- or BLMadministered lands (table 3.29). We believe that

westslope cutthroat trout are an appropriate proxy

for torrent sculpin in that they occupy many of

the same habitats and have similar requirements

for cold, high-quality habitat conditions. There is

a strong association between the distributions of

westslope cutthroat trout and torrent sculpin (chisquare test of independence, P < 0.01). Refer to

section "Projected Effects on Widely-Distributed

Salmonid Species" on westslope cutthroat trout

for a discussion of how alternatives would affect

torrent sculpin. Unlike westslope cutthroat or redband trout, however, torrent sculpin have less

vagility (that is, less capacity or tendency to

become widely dispersed). Once eliminated from

a river system, they are unlikely to recolonize

without artificial assistance. Alternatives with high

riparian zone protection would be most advantageous for this species. For restoration efforts to be

successful, transplants of the torrent sculpin into

restored areas would likely be necessary.

Shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus)

Historically, shorthead sculpin were widely distributed within the Columbia River drainage. In

the lower Columbia River drainage, they are

known from the Deschutes, Yakima, Wenatchee,

and John Day River drainages. In the mid and

upper Columbia River drainage, shorthead

sculpin are known from the Snake, Spokane, Pend

Oreille, Kootenai, Coeur d'Alene, and St. Joe

River drainages. Many of the cold, clear waters

preferred by this species have been degraded by

timber harvest and associated road construction.

Although the current distribution of shorthead

sculpin clearly has declined, our knowledge is limited because in much of the assessment area,

sculpins often are reported generically as Cottus

sp. with little attention paid to specific identification. The species prefers coldwater streams and

smaller rivers, and typically occurs at higher elevations than the torrent sculpin. Approximately 66

percent of existing populations occur on FS- or

BLM-administered lands (table 3.29). We believe

that bull trout are an appropriate proxy for shorthead sculpin in that they occupy many of the

same habitats and have similar requirements for

cold, high-quality habitat conditions. There is a

strong association between the distributions of

bull trout and shorthead sculpin (chi-square test

of independence, P < 0.01). Refer to "Findings by

Species, Bull trout" section of this chapter for a

discussion of how alternatives would affect shorthead sculpin. Unlike bull trout, however, shorthead sculpin have low vagility. Once eliminated

from a river system, they are unlikely to recolonize without artificial assistance. Alternatives with

high riparian zone protection would be most

advantageous for this species. For restoration

efforts to be successful, transplants of the shorthead sculpin into restored areas likely would

be necessary.

Margined sculpin (Cottus marginatus)

The margined sculpin is restricted to streams in

the Blue Mountains portion of the middle

Columbia River drainage. Like many sculpins,

518 Aquatics
they are relatively poorly known and subjected to

lumping as Cottus sp. in collections. Current

information indicates that only about 13 percent

of existing populations occur on FS- or BLMadministered lands (table 3.29). Within their

range, they occur sympatrically with redband

trout. Redband trout should be a good proxy for

this species because both occupy similar habitats

and are adversely affected by increases in water

temperature, turbidity, and stream sedimentation.

There is a strong association between the distributions of redband trout and margined sculpin (chisquare test of independence, P < 0.01). Therefore,

we used redband trout as a proxy for margined

sculpin in this analysis. Refer to "Findings by

Species, Redband trout" section for a discussion of

how alternatives would affect the margined

sculpin. Unlike redband trout, however, margined

sculpin have less vagility. Once eliminated from a

river system, they are unlikely to recolonize without artificial assistance. Alternatives with high

riparian zone protection would be most advantageous for this species. For restoration efforts to be

successful, transplants of the margined sculpin

into restored areas would likely be necessary.

Aquatic Mollusk Species

There are five federally listed (status, endangered)

aquatic snails that are found in the Basin (Frest

and Johannes 1995). They are:

Lanx n. sp. 1 (Banbury Springs lanx)

Physa natricina (Snake River physa)

Pyrgulopsis idahoensis (Idaho springsnail)

Taylorconcha serpenticola (Bliss Rapids

springsnail)

Valvata utahensis (desert valvata)

According to Frest and Johannes (1995), the

Banbury Springs lanx, Bliss Rapids springsnail,

and desert valvata may occur on federally administered lands in Idaho (specifically, BLM). For

each of these three species, we provide a brief

summary of the reasons that we did not complete

a viability analysis for the UCRB planning area.

Banbury Springs lanx

(Lanx n. sp. 1)

This species occurs in only three known populations in the Snake River drainage in Gooding

County, Idaho. It is considered a very local

endemic that is threatened primarily by agricultural and fish-farm runoff and water diversions.

Because of the very local distribution of the

species, the alternatives in the UCRB preliminary

draft EIS will not be site specific (fine scale)

enough to determine the effect on viability. This

analysis and determination should be done on a

site-specific, project basis rather than on a landscape scale.

Bliss Rapids springsnail

(Taylorconcha serpenticola)

The current distribution of this species is limited

to very few sites within the original range. The

original range was a limited reach of the middle

Snake River, from Indian Cove Bridge to Twin

Falls, Idaho. Most spring and river populations

have been extirpated or are much reduced.

Threats to this species have been the diversion or

capping of springs and surface water and groundwater pollution from agricultural runoff. Because

of the very limited distribution of this species, as

with the Banbury Springs lanx, it is not appropriate to look at viability at the landscape scale. This

should be done at a site-specific, project level.

Desert valvata (Valvata utahensis)

The distribution of this species has become very

limited and has been extirpated in much of its

original range. It is currently found in a "couple

of Snake River sites" and spring-fed pools with no

outlets (Frest and Johannes 1995). It is considered

a local endemic. The pollution of surface and

groundwater from agricultural runoff and the

impoundments of rivers continue to threaten the

species. The taxon is continuing to decline. The

very limited number and distribution of the

species make it inappropriate to do a viability

Aquatics
analysis at the landscape scale. The assessment of

viability needs to be done at a site-specific, project

level.

All three of these species are local endemics with

very limited distribution and numbers. The

science assessments and preliminary draft EISs are

focused on a landscape or a large watershed scale.

Direction in the alternatives is unlikely to be so

specific that effects on these species would be

identifiable or predictable. The major threats to

these species are linked primarily to agriculture

and river impoundments, and are outside of the

management authority of the BLM. Therefore, we

feel it is not valid to attempt to do a. viability

analysis given the scale of our data and the scale of

the decisions to be made. Local administrative

units have the opportunity to analyze the effects

of proposed projects on these species and determine management needs to protect them from

potential activities.

Summary of Aquatic Habitats

and Native Species

Evaluation of Alternatives

Evaluation of the ICBEMP aquatic conservation

strategies and the expected effect of each alternative on the future habitats, population status, and

distribution of 7 key salmonids and 18 rare and

sensitive fishes are very complex. Each piece of

information used in our evaluation provided some

sense of where and how much of the anticipated

change in management is likely to influence each

of the species considered. Each piece of information has important limitations, and represents

only a single element in this larger and very complex picture. Our conclusions are drawn from the

strength and consistency of trends adapted from

the models, the patterns in allocation of roads and

other land disturbing activities, the allocation of

restoration activities, and the mitigation of disturbance expected through riparian and ecosystem

objectives and standards, as well as specific direction given in each alternative.

The evaluation by species centered on each alternatives' ability to conserve core and fringe areas,

prevent declines in habitat and populations, and

rehabilitate habitats and depressed populations.

Core areas are concentrations of strong populations, and are areas where the species is well distributed among adjacent watersheds. Fringe areas

are where comparatively few occupied watersheds

are isolated and fragmented from the larger portions of the species range, but have high genetic

integrity or potentially unique genetic characteristics which aid the robustness of the species.

The expected response of a species to any alternative is complex, and the answer to each of a set of

evaluation questions for every alternative represents a judgment on our part given the weight of

the evidence presented. For example, with

Alternative 5, the answer to the question "will

strong populations in the central or core areas for

bull trout be conserved?" was "no", yet strongholds associated with Category 1 watersheds

should fare well under this alternative. The proportion of wilderness and emphasis on ecosystem

analysis and restoration are focused to benefit

strong populations under this alternative, and will

likely sustain and even expand the distribution of

bull trout within these select subbasins. However,

areas which emphasize commodity production

(for example, eastern Oregon and the northern

one-third of the UCRB planning area) occupy

larger areas of the species range, and our data suggest that populations here will not fare well, leading us to a negative conclusion. Exceptions are

found within all of our summary determinations.

If we could not assign a "yes" or "no" answer

because of insufficient information or multiple

factors leading to uncertainty, we responded with

"uncertain."

Our summary is based on professional interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative information collected for the purpose of the alternative

evaluation or generated as part of the broader scientific assessment (Lee and others, in press). From

table 3.31, it is clear that Alternatives 1 and 5

would not sustain aquatic and riparian ecosystem

structure and function through time, nor would

they adequately protect the key salmonid species

or the rare and sensitive species. Alternatives 2, 3,

Aquatics
4, 6, and 7 would sustain and restore aquatic and

riparian ecosystems through time, but would have

mixed results for both key salmonids and rare and

sensitive species. The response of the key

salmonids to Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 would

be more complex, yet consistent with the ratings

for the aquatic conservation strategies. More

species would fare better under Alternatives 4, 6,

and 7 than under Alternatives 2 and 3. The aquatic conservation strategy ratings, based on combined evaluation of interim RMA widths, specific

direction regarding performance measures, and

whether an ecosystem analysis is required in

strongholds and high-priority watersheds, are

highest for Alternatives 4, 6, and 7. Alternatives 2

and 3 do not include major restoration efforts or

an ecosystem analysis requirement. They appeared

to provide little more than a comprehensive project analysis and therefore, rate somewhat lower.

It is uncertain whether any of the alternatives

would conserve fringe populations and habitats

for the anadromous salmonids (such as, steelhead

trout, stream-type chinook, and ocean-type chinook). Uncertainty also exists concerning preventing population declines and rebuilding

depressed areas for these species. Most of these

populations are depressed or federally listed and

are significantly influenced by hydroelectric dams,

ocean conditions, hatcheries, and land management activities outside of Federal lands. Ocean

chinook are proportionately more affected by a

large number of factors that operate outside of

Federal lands in freshwater, estuaries, and the

ocean environment. All of their migration corridors between freshwater spawning and rearing

habitats and the ocean lie on private or tribal

lands. The most conservative approach to conserving and restoring watersheds would be provided

by Alternatives 6 and 7. Given the effects of nonFederal land conditions and activities, the halting

of declines and rebuilding of anadromous fish

populations requires focused and coordinated

efforts by several national, regional, and state

agencies and institutions.

Aquatics 521
Table 3.31. Summary of aquatic habitats and native fishes evaluation of preliminary draft alternatives.

^^^^ss^

11TM! Aite

r

ive

 I

 Alte

r

lve

 I

 Alte

r

ive

 I

 Alter

r

ive

 I

 Alte

r

protection to:

 1 z 3 4 5 

6 Key Salmonld Species

1

 Y ' N ' U~ Y'N' U Y ' N ' U Y ' N ' U Y'

Conserve strong populations 0 | 6 | 0 5 | 1 | 0 4 | 0 | 2 6 | 0 | 0 0,6

Prevent declines 06 0 o 6 o 04 2 11 4 o 

Rebuild depressed populations 0 i 6 | 0 4 | 2 i 0 6 | 0 | 0 6 | 0 i 0 4 t 2 

15 Rare and Sensitive Species

2

Prevent declines ~T~| 14 [ 0 7 \ 7 \ 1 7 \ 3 \ 5 ~7 \ 1 \ 7 1 \ 

Does the aquatic conservation strategy N

maintain and restore aquatic and riparian N v v v com

ecological processes through time?

 e

 emp

a

'Ocean-type chinook are minimally impacted by FS and BLM lands and no core strongholds exist on FS or BLM lands. They are, therefore, not included in th

Three of the 18 rare and sensitive fishes addressed in the evaluation were not included in this summary because one species is protected under the ESA, Sectio

insufficient information to conduct an analysis. Also of note, pygmy whitefish are large, lake-dwelling fish that would be minimally impacted by any alternativ

U = Uncertain; Y = Yes; N = No
References

Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern

Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment

team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment; Hessburg, Paul E, science team

leader and tech. ed., Vol. Ill: assessment.)

Behnke, RJ. 1992. Native trout of western North

America. Monograph No. 6. Bethesda, MD:

American Fisheries Society. 275 p.

Belk, M.C.; Wilson, K.W. 1995. Survey of Cassia,

Goose, Trapper, and Beaverdam Creeks to

determine distribution of leatherside chub

(Gila copei). Report of Department of Zoology,

Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, [not

paged].

Belt, G.H.; O'Laughlin, J.; Merrill, T. 1992.

Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the

protection of water quality: analysis of scientific

literature. Report No. 8. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range

Policy Analysis Group, [not paged].

Berg, W.J. 1987. Evolutionary genetics of rainbow

trout, Parasalmogairdnerii (Richardson). Davis,

CA: University of California, Davis. 125 p.

Ph.D. dissertation.

Beschta, R.L. 1990. Effects of fire on water quantity and quality. Chapter 17. In: Walstad, J.D.;

Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural

prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

317 p.

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. [and

others]. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic

habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In:

Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions.

Contribution 57. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 191-

232.

Brazier, J.R.; Brown, G.W. 1973. Buffer strips for

stream temperature control. Research Paper 15.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [not paged].

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

(CBFWA). 1990. Integrated system plan for

salmon and steelhead production in the

Columbia Basin. 442 p. On file with: Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 S.W Sixth

Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, OR.

Emlen, J.M. 1995. Population viability of the

Snake River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences; 52: 1442-1448.

Erman, D.C.; Mahoney, D. 1983. Recovery after

logging in streamside bufFerstrips in Northern

California. Contribution No. 186. 48 p. On

file with: Center for Water and Wildland

Resources, University of California-Davis,

Davis, CA. 95616.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social

assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture; U.S. Department of Interior [and

others]. [irregular pagination].

Frest, T.J.; Johannes, E.J. 1995. Interior Columbia

Basin mollusk species of special concern. Final

report to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Contract #43-

OEOO-4-9112. On file with: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA

99362. [not paged].

Aquatics 823
Frissell, Christopher A.; Bayles, David. 1996.

Ecosystem management and the conservation

of aquatic biodiversity and ecological integrity.

Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2):229-240.

Gray, D.H. 1970. Effects of forest clearcutting on

the stability of natural slopes. Association of

English Geologists Bulletin. 7: 45-67.

Gray, D.H. 1978. Role of woody vegetation in

reinforcing soils and stabilizing slopes. In:

Proceedings of soil reinforcement and stabilizing techniques engineering practicum. Sydney,

Australia: New South Wales Institute of

Technology: 253-306.

Gray, D.H.; Megahan, WE 1981. Forest vegetation removal and slope stability in the Idaho

batholith. Research Paper INT-271. Ogden,

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 23 p.

Gregory, S.V.; Lamberti, G.A.; Erman, D.C.; [and

others]. 1987. Influence of forest practices on

aquatic production. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy,

T.W, eds. Streamside management: forestry

and fishery interactions. Proceedings of the

symposium. 1986 February. Contribution No.

57. Seattle, WA: Institute of Forest Resources,

University of Washington. 233-255.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG);

Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes of Fort Hall. 1990. Salmon River subbasin salmon and steelhead production plan.

Boise, ID. Idaho Department of Fish and

Game, [not paged].

(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995.

Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice

and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim

Strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, western Montana, and portions of

Nevada. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific

Northwest Regions, [irregular pagination].

Lee, D.C.; Sedell, J.R.; Rieman, B.; [and others],

(in press). Broadscale assessment of aquatic

species and habitats. In: Quigley, Thomas M.;

Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of

ecosystem components in the Interior

Columbia Basin and portions of Klamath and

Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTRXXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech.

ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: Scientific assessment).

Lichatowich, J.A.; Mobrand, L.E. 1995. Analysis

of chinook salmon in the Columbia River from

an ecosystem perspective. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power

Administration [Unpublished report]. Contract

No. DE-AM79-92BP25105.

McCammon, B. 1993. Determining the risk of

cumulative watershed effects resulting from

multiple activities—Endangered Species Act,

Section 7. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, [not paged].

McDade, M.H.; Swanson, F.J.; [and others].

1990. Source distances for coarse woody debris

entering small streams in western Oregon and

Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest

Resources. 20: 326-330.

McGurk, Bruce J.; Fong, Darren R. 1995.

Equivalent roaded area as a measure of cumulative effect of logging. Environmental

Management. 19(4): 609-621.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and

rangeland management on salmonid fishes and

their habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda,

MD: American Fisheries Society, [not paged].

824 Aquatics
Megahan, W.F.; Potyondy, J.P.; Seyedbagheri, K.A.

1992. Best management practices and cumulative effects from sedimentation on the South

Fork Salmon River: an Idaho case study. In:

Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed management:

Balancing sustainability and environmental

change. Symposium- new perspectives for

watershed management in the Pacific

Northwest; Seattle, WA. New York: SpringerVerlag: 385-400.

Menning, K.M.; Erman, K.; Johnson, N.;

Sessions, J. 1996. Modeling aquatic and riparian systems, assessing cumulative watershed

effects, and limiting watershed disturbance.

Davis, CA: University of California-Davis,

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, [not paged].

Moyle, P.B.; Yoshiyama, R.M.; Williams, J.E.;

Wikramanayake, E.D. 1995. Fish Species of

Special Concern in California (2nd Edition).

Sacramento, CA: California Department of

Fish and Game, [not paged].

Murphy, M.L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitats and anadromous salmonids in the

Pacific Northwest and Alaska: Requirements

for protection and restoration. NOAA Coastal

Ocean Program. Decision Analysis Series No.7.

Silver Spring, MD: Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Office. 156 p.

National Research Council. 1995. Upstream:

Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest.

Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Chapter 3. 39-66.

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draft

environmental assessment. Interim strategies

for managing anadromous fish-producing

watersheds on Federal lands in eastern Oregon

and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of

California. Washington DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department

of Interior Bureau of Land Management,

[irregular pagination].

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision

Notice/Decision Record, FONSI, EA, Appendices for the Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

Portions of California. Washington DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land

Management, [irregular pagination].

Raymond, H.L. 1979. Effects of dams and

impoundments on migrations of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead from the Snake

River, 1966 to 1975. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society. 108: 505-29.

Raymond, H.L. 1988. Effects of hydroelectric

development and fisheries enhancement on

spring and summer chinook salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 8:

1-24.

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M. [and

others]. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem

approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of

anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In: Nielson, J., ed. Evolution and the

aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in

population conservation. Symposium 17.

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society,

[not paged].

Sedell, J.R.; Beschta, R.L. 1991. Bringing back

the "bio" in bioengineering. In: Colt, J.;

Dendrall, S., eds. Fisheries bioengineering:

Proceedings of the symposium. Bethesda, MD:

American Fisheries Society. 10: 160-175.

Aquatics
Spence, B.C.; Lomnincky, G.A.; Hughes, R.M.;

Novitzki, R.P. 1996. An ecosystem approach to

salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057.

ManTech Environmental Services Corp.,

Corvallis, OR. (Available from the National

Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.)

Steinblums, I.J.; Froehlich, H.A.; Lyons, J.K.

1984. Designing stable buffer strips for stream

protection. Journal of Forestry. 82:49-52.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. February 1996a. Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project; Eastside Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (internal draft). On

file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA

99362. [irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. February 1996b. Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project; Upper Columbia River Basin Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (internal draft). On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, WA 99362. [irregular pagination].

Williams, J.E.; Johnson, J.E.; Hendrickson, D.A.

[and others]. 1989. Fishes of North America

endangered, threatened, or of special concern:

1989. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Society. 14(6): 2-20.

908 Aquatics
Appendix 3-A

Aquatic/Riparian Evaluation of Alternatives

Workshop participants. Workshop was held in

Boise, Idaho, from March 6 to 13, 1996.

ICBEMP Science Integration Team Members:

Jim Sedell - USFS, Corvallis, Oregon

Danny Lee - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Bruce Rieman - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Russ Thurow - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Kerry Overton - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Kristine Lee - USFS, Ogden, Utah

Jack Williams - BLM, Boise, Idaho

Bob House - BLM, Boise, Idaho

ICBEMP EISTeam Members:

Irish Carroll - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Jim O'Connor - USFS, Portland, Oregon

Invited Agency Participants:

Sandy Noble - USFWS, Leavenworth, Washington

Mike Murphy - NFMS, Juneau, Alaska

Don Martin - EPA, Boise, Idaho

Doug Young - USFWS, Klamath Falls, Oregon

Peter Bisson - USFS, Olympia, Washington

Agency Observers:

Patricia Zenone - USFWS, Boise, Idaho

Jeff Lockwood - NMFS, Portland, Oregon

Steve Bauer - for EPA, Boise, Idaho

Support:

Scott Leonard - USFS, Emmett, Idaho

Tracy Noel - USFS, Corvallis, Oregon

Venetia Gempler - USFS, Boise, Idaho

Susie Henry - BLM, Boise, Idaho

Aquatics
Appendix 3-B

Classification trees used for predicting species status.

Classification trees were developed using the approach outlined by Lee and others (in press) in order to

project status under each of the alternatives. Table B. 1 describes the variables used in tree development.

The remaining sections summarize tree structure. Figures B.I to B.8 graphically show tree structure. All

classification trees except that developed for ocean-type chinook were sensitive to road-density measures.

Future predictions were made using the projected road-density layers.

Table B.I. Descriptions of landscape variables used in the abbreviated analysis offish distribution. All values expressed as percents refer to the percent area of the subwatershed.

Variable Name Description

eru

Physiographic and Geophysical Variables

slope

pprecip

elev

mtemp

solar

drnden

anadac

dampass

hucorder

hk

baseero

ero

bank

Ownership and Management Variables

rdmeanO

rdmedO

rdgeoO

mgclus

Ecological Reporting Unit

area weighted average midslope

mean annual precipitation (PRISM)

mean elevation (ft)

mean annual temperature

mean annual solar radiation

drainage density (mi/mi2)

access for anadromous fish (0 = no, 1 = yes)

number of intervening dams

number of upstream 6th-code hydrologic units

soil texture coefficient

base erosion index

surface erosion hazard

streambank erosion hazard

mean road density

median road density class

geometric mean road density

management classification

828 Aquatics
Bull trout presence/absence, two-step model

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "mtemp" "rdgeoO" "hucorder" "pprecip" "eru"

Number of terminal nodes: 7

Residual mean deviance: 0.9658 = 2617 / 2710

Misclassification error rate: 0.2172 = 590 / 2717

Figure B.1. Tree structure

Node) Split criterion

1) root

2) mtemp<5.08

4) rdgeoO<0.893289

8) hucorder<16.5

16) pprecip<593.731

17) pprecip>593.731

9) hucorder>16.5

5) rdgeoO>0.893289

10) hucorder<0.5

11) hucorder>0.5

22) eru<7.5

23) eru>7.5

3) mtemp>5.08

Sample size

2717

1475

951

842

116

726

109

524

296

228

104

124

1242

Deviance

3279.00

2024.00

1314.00

1145.00

142.10

959.30

94.38

616.20

252.30

312.10

121.20

169.30

878.90

Mode

A

A

P

P

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

Absent

( 0.7085

( 0.5586

( 0.4669

(0.4181

( 0.6983

( 0.3733

( 0.8440

( 0.7252

( 0.8480

( 0.5658

( 0.7308

( 0.4274

( 0.8865

Present

0.2915)

0.4414)

0.5331 )

0.5819)

0.3017)

0.6267 )

0.1560)

0.2748 )

0.1520)

0.4342 )

0.2692 )

0.5726 )

0.1135)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* denotes terminal node

Bull trout status

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "rdgeoO" "solar" "baseero" "drnden" "bank" "rdmeanO" "eru"

Number of terminal nodes: 8

Residual mean deviance: 0.723 = 566.8 / 784

Misclassification error rate: 0.1427 = 113/ 792

Figure B.2. Tree Structure

Node) Split criterion Sample size Deviance Mode Depressed Present

1) root

2) rdgeoO<0.027454

4) solar<242.706

5) solar>242.706

10) baseero<59.61 57

20) drnden<1. 30505

21 )drnden>1. 30505

11) baseero>59.6157

3) rdgeoO>0.027454

6) bank<51 .8028

7) bank>51 .8028

14) rdmeanO<2.87869

28) eru<2.5

29) eru>2.5

15) rdmeanO>2.87869

792

198

20

178

145

95

50

33

594

109

485

411

5

406

74

821 .20

274.30

0.00

242.900

201.000

123.900

55.110

20.110

418.600

124.200

271 .400

257.900

5.004

238.500

0.000

D

S

D

S

D

D

S

S

D

D

D

D

S

D

D

( 0.7866

( 0.4848

(1.0000

( 0.4270

( 0.5034

( 0.6421

( 0.2400

( 0.0909

( 0.8872

( 0.7431

(0.9196

( 0.9051

( 0.2000

(0.9138

( 1 .0000

0.2134

0.5152

0.0000

0.5730

0.4966

0.3579

0.7600

0.9091

0.1128

0.2569

0.0804

0.0949

0.8000

0.0862

0.0000

)

)

)*

)

)

)*

)*

)*

)

)*

)

)

)*

)*

)*

* denotes terminal node

Aquatics
Westslope cutthroat trout status

'anadac" "mngclus"

"xisqO" "slope"

Summary

Variables used in tree construction:

"pprecip" "mtemp" "hucorder"

Number of terminal nodes: 19

Residual mean deviance: 1.165 = 1888 /1621

Misclassification error rate: 0.214 = 351 /1640

Figure B.3. Tree structure

"rdgeoO" "hk" "solar" "rdmeanO" "bank"

Node) split criterion

1 ) root

2) anadacxO.5

4) mngclus:FG,FH,FM,FW

8) rdgeoO<0.276237

16)hk<0.207

17) hk>0.207

34) solar<234.838

35) solar>234.838

70) rdmeanO<0.486637

71) rdmeanO>0.486637

9) rdgeoO>0.276237

18) bank<59.4293

19)bank>59.4293

5) mngclus:NP,PA,PF,PR,TL

10) pprecip<527.034

20) solar<296.847

21)solar>296.847

1 1 ) pprecip>527.034

3) anadaoO.5

6) mtemp<5.809

12) rdmeanO<0.0484976

24) hucorder<26

25) hucorder>26

13) rdmeanO>0.0484976

26) solar<265.875

52) rdmeanO<2.75627

53) rdmeanO>2.75627

27) solar>265.875

54) xisqO<360.367

55) xisqO>360.367

110)solar<325.618

111)solar>325.618

222) slope<34.3295

223) slope>34.3295

7) mtemp>5.809

Sample size

1640

1057

631

207

33

174

43

131

68

63

424

31

393

426

106

98

8

320

583

434

136

117

19

298

41

30

11

257

103

154

62

92

84

8

149

14) mngclus:FH,FW,PA,PF,PR 129

15)mngclus:FG,FM,TL 20

Deviance

3108.00

1511.00

908.40

320.90

20.11

269.10

50.92

194.00

70.25

86.94

505.20

65.08

413.90

465.20

142.00

121.90

0.00

291.60

1261.00

940.50

260.00

212.30

12.79

609.30

59.42

17.47

23.98

488.90

127.20

313.00

106.40

179.20

152.00

8.997

149.50

65.28

41.19

Mode

D

D

D

S

D

S

D

S

S

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

A

D

S

S

A

D

S

S

A

D

D

D

A

D

D

S

A

A

D

Absent

(0.19630

( 0.07852

( 0.03645

(0.01932

( 0.00000

( 0.02299

( 0.00000

( 0.03053

( 0.05882

( 0.00000

( 0.04481

(0.19350

( 0.03308

(0.14080

(0.31130

(0.25510

(1.00000

( 0.08438

( 0.40990

( 0.26040

( 0.30880

(0.21370

( 0.89470

( 0.23830

( 0.12200

( 0.03333

( 0.36360

( 0.25680

( 0.04854

(0.39610

( 0.64520

( 0.22830

( 0.22620

( 0.25000

( 0.84560

( 0.93020

( 0.30000

Depressed

0.60240

0.75210

0.70210

0.48790

0.90910

0.40800

0.72090

0.30530

0.08824

0.53970

0.80660

0.41940

0.83720

0.82630

0.67920

0.73470

0.00000

0.87500

0.33100

0.40090

0.13240

0.15380

0.00000

0.52350

0.12200

0.03333

0.36360

0.58750

0.79610

0.44810

0.25810

0.57610

0.63100

0.00000

0.12750

0.06977

0.50000

Strong

0.20120 )

0.16930)

0.26150)

0.49280 )

0.09091 ) *

0.56900 )

0.27910 ) *

0.66410)

0.85290 ) *

0.46030 ) *

0.14860 )

0.38710)*

0.12980 ) *

0.03286 )

0.00943 )

0.01020)*

0.00000 ) *

0.04063 ) *

0.25900 )

0.33870 )

0.55880 )

0.63250 ) *

0.10530 ) *

0.23830 )

0.75610)

0.93330 ) *

0.27270 ) *

0.15560)

0.15530 ) *

0.15580 )

0.09677 ) *

0.19570 )

0.14290)*

0.75000 ) *

0.02685 )

0.00000 ) *

0.20000 ) *

* denotes terminal node

S38 Aquatics
Yellowstone cutthroat trout status

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "rdgeoO" "drnden" "mtemp" "mngclus" "hucorder"

Number of terminal nodes: 7

Residual mean deviance: 1.031 = 399.1 / 387

Misclassification error rate: 0.2208 = 87 / 394

Figure B.4. Tree structure

Node) split criterion

1) root

2) rdgeoO<0. 140255

4) drnden<0.99565

5) drnden>0.99565

3) rdgeoO>0. 140255

6) mtemp<6.1345

12) mngclus:FG,PF

24) hucorder<10.5

25) hucorder>10.5

13) mngclus:BR,FH,FM,PA,

26) drnden<1 .55755

27) drnden>1 .55755

7) mtemp>6.1345

Sample size

394

161

87

74

233

180

58

45

13

PR.TL 122

66

56

53

Deviance

846.30

160.50

10.92

98.16

481.30

378.00

94.75

64.63

7.05

239.10

120.20

88.18

9.92

Mode

S

S

S

S

A

D

D

D

S

D

A

D

A

Absent

( 0.26900

( 0.00621

(0.01149

( 0.00000

( 0.45060

( 0.29440

( 0.03448

( 0.02222

( 0.07692

(0.41800

( 0.62120

(0.17860

(0.98110

Depressed

0.29190

0.17390

0.00000

0.37840

0.37340

0.47780

0.51720

0.66670

0.00000

0.45900

0.24240

0.71430

0.01887

Strong

0.4391 )

0.8199)

0.9885 )*

0.6216)*

0.1760 )

0.2278 )

0.4483 )

0.3111 )*

0.9231 )*

0.1230 )

0.1364)*

0.1071 )*

0.0000 )*

* denotes terminal node

Aquatics S31
Redband trout status

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "mngclus" "mtemp" "hucorder" "eru" "elev" "anadac" "rdgeoO"

Number of terminal nodes: 14

Residual mean deviance: 1.471 = 2577 /1752

Misclassification error rate: 0.3596 = 635 /1766

Figure B.5 Tree Structure

Node) split criterion

1) root

2) mngclus:BR,FM,PA,PR1243

4) mtemp<6.822

8) hucorder<1.5

9) hucorder>1 .5

18)eru<11.5

19)eru>11.5

5) mtemp>6.822

10)mtemp<10.1465

20) elev<5493.5

40) hucorder<0.5

80) mngclus:FM,PA

81) mngclus:BR,PR

41) hucorder>0.5

82) hucorder<144

164) mtemp<7.126

165) mtemp>7.126

83) hucorder>144

21)elev>5493.5

11)mtemp>10.1465

3) mngclus:FG,FH,FW,PF,TL

6) anadac<0.5

12)elev<3188

13)elev>3188

26)rdgeoO<0.118466

27)rdgeoO>0.118466

7) anadaoO.5

Sample size

1766

1243

365

258

107

95

12

878

775

731

383

106

227

348

308

46

262

40

44

103

523

404

34

370

89

281

119

Deviance

3530.00

2085.00

696.50

486.70

189.20

153.10

16.30

1299.00

1203.00

1072.00

442.90

146.30

247.10

588.20

537.80

60.39

457.00

0.00

94.47

51.17

1036.00

680.90

55.70

580.60

148.50

408.00

252.40

Mode

A

A

D

A

D

D

S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

A

D

A

D

D

S

D

S

D

A

Absent

( 0.46720

(0.60180

( 0.40000

( 0.47290

( 0.22430

( 0.25260

( 0.00000

( 0.68560

(0.65160

(0.67170

( 0.77280

( 0.53770

( 0.86280

( 0.56030

( 0.50320

( 0.78260

( 0.45420

( 1 .00000

(0.31820

(0.94170

( 0.14720

( 0.05446

( 0.23530

( 0.03784

( 0.04494

( 0.03559

( 0.46220

Depressed

0.39130

0.33950

0.49320

0.43020

0.64490

0.67370

0.41670

0.27560

0.30580

0.29820

0.21670

0.46230

0.12270

0.38790

0.43830

0.15220

0.48850

0.00000

0.43180

0.04854

0.51430

0.57920

0.08824

0.62430

0.40450

0.69400

0.29410

Strong

0.14160)

0.05873 )

0.10680)

0.09690 ) *

0.13080)

0.07368 ) *

0.58330 ) *

0.03872 )

0.04258 )

0.03010 )

0.01044 )

0.00000 ) *

0.01444 ) *

0.05172)

0.05844 )

0.06522 ) *

0.05725 ) *

0.00000 ) *

0.25000 ) *

0.00971 ) *

0.33840 )

0.36630 )

0.67650 ) *

0.33780 )

0.55060 ) *

0.27050 ) *

0.24370 ) *

* denotes terminal node

S32 Aquatics
Steel head status

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "hucorder" "dampass" "elev" "eru" "rdgeoO"

Number of terminal nodes: 17

Residual mean deviance: 0.8778 = 1175 /1338

Misclassification error rate: 0.1528 = 207 /1355

Figure B.6 Tree structure

Node) Split criterion Sample size

1) root

2) hucorder<21 .5

4) hucorder<0.5

8) dampass<3.5

16) elev<4935.5

17)elev>4935.5

9) dampass>3.5

18) elev<3432.5

19)elev>3432.5

38) eru<6.5

76) eru<5.5

77) eru>5.5

39) eru>6.5

78) rdgeoO<0.0206938

79) rdgeoO>0.0206938

158)elev<6237.5

159) elev>6237.5

5) hucorder>0.5

10)elev<1427

11)elev>1427

3) hucorder>21 .5

6) hucorder<121

12) elev<1 053.5

13)elev>1053.5

26) eru<6.5

27) eru>6.5

54) hucorder<65

108) elev<4564.5

109)elev>4564.5

55) hucorder>65

7) hucorder>121

14) dampass<2.5

1 5) dampass>2.5

1355

1064

563

144

116

28

419

66

353

152

54

98

201

71

130

70

60

501

19

482

291

127

9

118

51

67

54

24

30

13

164

16

148

Deviation

2400.00

1419.00

809.20

104.60

41.22

33.50

628.30

92.16

499.30

150.80

85.38

22.30

317.00

83.25

215.90

121.50

76.38

513.70

29.11

422.50

369.00

170.30

0.00

152.40

28.04

92.15

74.19

26.99

30.02

0.00

117.60

19.87

62.24

Mode

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

A

D

M

D

M

D

M

D

D

M

D

M

D

M

M

D

M

Absent

(0.13140

(0.16730

(0.26110

( 0.03472

(0.04310

( 0.00000

( 0.33890

( 0.66670

( 0.27760

(0.13160

(0.35190

(0.01020

( 0.38810

(0.21130

( 0.48460

( 0.32860

( 0.66670

( 0.06188

( 0.05263

( 0.06224

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

( 0.00000

Depressed

0.68710

0.78480

0.70870

0.90970

0.95690

0.71430

0.63960

0.31820

0.69970

0.84870

0.61110

0.97960

0.58710

0.77460

0.48460

0.61430

0.33330

0.87030

0.26320

0.89420

0.32990

0.60630

0.00000

0.65250

0.92160

0.44780

0.55560

0.25000

0.80000

0.00000

0.11590

0.68750

0.05405

Migration

0.16680

0.02914

0.00888

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.01193

0.01515

0.01133

0.00658

0.00000

0.01020

0.01493

0.01408

0.01538

0.02857

0.00000

0.05190

0.68420

0.02697

0.67010

0.39370

1 .00000

0.34750

0.07843

0.55220

0.44440

0.75000

0.20000

1 .00000

0.88410

0.31250

0.94590

Strong

0.01476)

0.01880)

0.02131 )

0.05556 )

0.00000 )*

0.28570 )*

0.00955 )

0.00000 )*

0.01133)

0.01316)

0.03704 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00995 )

0.00000 )*

0.01538)

0.02857 )*

0.00000 )*

0.01597)

0.00000 )*

0.01660 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

* denotes terminal node

Aquatics 033
Ocean-type Chinook salmon status

Summary

Variablesused in tree construction: "hucorder" "elev" "dampass" "eru"

Number of terminal nodes: 11

Residual mean deviance: 0.5208 = 116.1 / 223

Misclassification error rate: 0.07265 = 17 / 234

Figure B.7. Tree structure

Node) Split criterion

1)root

2) hucorder<1080

4) hucorder<5.5

8)elev<2113

16) dampass<3.5

17) dampass>3.5

9)elev>2113

5) hucorder>5.5

10) dampass<7.5

20) eru<3.5

21) eru>3.5

42) dampass<2.5

84) elev<1 888.5

85) elev>1 888.5

43) dampass>2.5

1 1 ) dampass>7.5

22) elev<3145.5

23) elev>3145.5

3) hucorder>1080

6)elev<2103.5

7)elev>2103.5

Sample size

234

171

90

23

9

14

67

81

34

14

20

11

6

5

9

47

30

17

63

46

17

Deviation

585.00

365.00

81.49

31.490

6.279

11.48

17.99

193.20

75.77

11.48

43.22

14.42

0.000

5.004

6.279

71.26

28.06

12.32

81.08

9.635

7.606

Mode

A

A

A

A

M

A

A

D

S

S

A

S

S

D

A

D

D

A

M

M

D

Absent

(0.4444

( 0.6082

( 0.8667

( 0.5652

(0.1111

( 0.8571

( 0.9701

(0.3210

( 0.2353

( 0.0000

( 0.4000

( 0.0000

( 0.0000

( 0.0000

( 0.8889

( 0.3830

(0.1000

( 0.8824

( 0.0000

( 0.0000

( 0.0000

Depressed

0.21790

0.20470

0.02222

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.02985

0.40740

0.14710

0.00000

0.25000

0.36360

0.00000

0.80000

0.11110

0.59570

0.86670

0.11760

0.25400

0.00000

0.94120

Migration

0.25210

0.07602

0.11110

0.43480

0.88890

0.14290

0.00000

0.03704

0.05882

0.14290

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.02128

0.03333

0.00000

0.73020

0.97830

0.05882

Strong

0.08547 )

0.11110)

0.00000 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.23460 )

0.55880 )

0.85710)*

0.35000 )

0.63640 )

1 .00000 )*

0.20000 *

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.01587)

0.02174)*

0.00000 )*

* denotes terminal node

834 Aquatics
Stream-type Chinook salmon status

Summary

Variables used in tree construction: "hucorder" "mtemp"

"eru"

Number of terminal nodes: 17

Residual mean deviance: 1.107 = 1399 /1264

Misclassification error rate: 0.2272 = 291 /1281

Figure B.8. Tree structure

"elev" "rdgeoO" "dampass" "rdmeanO"

Node) Split criterion Sample size

1) root

2) hucorder<29.5

4) hucorder<0.5

8) mtemp<5.7595

9) mtemp>5.7595

18)elev<1537.5

19)elev>1537.5

5) hucorder>0.5

10) mtemp<7.461

20) rdgeoO<0.8215135

40) dampass<3.5

41) dampass>3.5

82) hucorder<11.5

164) rdgeoO<0.0645532

165) rdgeoO>0.0645532

330) elev<5682.5

331)elev>5682.5

83) hucorder>1 1 .5

21) rdgeoO>0.8215135

11) mtemp>7.461

22) eru<3.5

23) eru>3.5

3) hucorder>29.5

6) hucorder<57.5

12) mtemp<8.8675

13) mtemp>8.8675

7) hucorder>57.5

14) dampass<2.5

1 5) dampass>2.5

1281

1006

509

340

169

16

153

497

365

211

17

194

166

97

69

31

38

28

154

132

19

113

275

77

63

14

198

16

182

Deviation

2756.00

1670.00

627.30

454.30

127.00

17.99

94.94

854.40

545.30

289.40

29.71

237.50

191.50

83.42

96.07

28.34

52.68

26.28

243.40

204.00

31.34

150.00

336.40

141.90

86.05

27.78

155.80

19.87

99.26

Mode

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

A

D

D

A

D

A

M

M

M

A

M

D

M

Absent

( 0.44420

( 0.55670

( 0.76230

( 0.69120

( 0.90530

( 0.75000

(0.92160

( 0.34610

(0.22190

(0.16110

(0.11760

(0.16490

(0.19280

(0.10310

( 0.31880

( 0.09677

( 0.50000

( 0.00000

( 0.30520

( 0.68940

(0.21050

( 0.76990

( 0.03273

( 0.09091

( 0.00000

( 0.50000

(0.01010

( 0.00000

(0.01099

Depressed

0.35910

0.40760

0.21810

0.29710

0.05917

0.00000

0.06536

0.60160

0.72880

0.78200

0.64710

0.79380

0.78920

0.87630

0.66670

0.87100

0.50000

0.82140

0.65580

0.25000

0.68420

0.17700

0.18180

0.37660

0.42860

0.14290

0.10610

0.68750

0.05495

Migration

0.19050

0.02783

0.01965

0.01176

0.03550

0.25000

0.01307

0.03622

0.02740

0.03791

0.00000

0.04124

0.01807

0.02062

0.01449

0.03226

0.00000

0.17860

0.01299

0.06061

0.10530

0.05310

0.78550

0.53250

0.57140

0.35710

0.88380

0.31250

0.93410

Strong

0.00625 )

0.00795 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.01610)

0.02192)

0.01896)

0.23530 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.02597 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )

0.00000 )*

0.00000 )*

* denotes terminal node

Aquatics
Notes

538
List of Acronyms

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity

AUM Animal Unit Month

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

BTUs British Thermal Units

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRBSUM Columbia River Basin SUccession

Model

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EEIS Eastside EIS Planning/Management

Area

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERU Ecological Reporting Units

ESI Existing Scenic Integrity

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team

FIRE BEA designation; Finance, Insurance

and Real Estate industries

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

GIS Geographic Information System

GPM General Planning Model

GSP Gross State Product

HUCs Hydrologic Unit Codes

LWD Large Woody Debris

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

ICRB Interior Columbia River Basin

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

PACFISH Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds

in Eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and portions of California

PILT Payments in Lieu of Taxes

RAC Resource Advisory Committee

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

RMA Riparian Management Area

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

PVG Potential Vegetation Group

PVT Potential Vegetation Type

RVD Recreation Visitor Day

SER Species-Environment Relations

(database)

SIC Standard Industrial Code

SIT Science Integration Team

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

UCRB Upper Columbia River Basin EIS

Planning/Management Area

USDA United States Department of

Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

Metric Conversion

Mile (mi)=1.61 Kilometers (km)

Kilometer (km)=.62 Miles (mi)

Square Kilometers (km2)=.39 Square Miles (mi2)

Centimeter (cm)=.3937 Inches (in)

Meter (m)=3.28 Feet (ft)

Hectare (ha)=10,000 Square Meters (m2)

Hectare (ha)=2.47 Acres (ac)

Acre (ac)=43,560 Square Feet (ft2)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997 - 589-106 / 41217 REGION NO. 10
Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kristine M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. 1997. Evaluation of the

Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives by the Science Integration Team. 2 Vols. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-406. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 1094 p.

The Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team describes the outcomes, interactions, effects, and consequences likely to result from implementing seven different management

strategies on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands within the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Two environmental

impact statement teams developed seven alternative approaches to the management of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and watershed systems of FS- and BLM- administered lands. The alternatives varied

from continuation of current management, to managing biodiversity within a network of large

reserves, to actively managing to restore ecosystem health and integrity. Continuing with current

management direction, in the absence of interim protection measures, results in continued declining trends in ecological integrity and increasing risk to species. No single alternative was found to

result in improved outcomes for all species, reduced risk to ecological integrity, and improved

resiliency for social and economic systems. Alternatives that prioritize activities to restore and/or

maintain ecological integrity and simultaneously provide desired goods and services within the

capability of the ecosystem appear to have favorable trends in most species outcomes, landscape

functions, and'resiliency in social and economic systems. The Draft and Final Environmental

Impact Statements are expected to differ to some extent from the preliminary Draft Environmental

Impact Statement analyzed for this evaluation.

The United States Department of Agriculture

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age disability, political beliefs, and marital or

familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means of communication of

program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) Should contact the USDA Office of

Communications at (202) 720-2791 (voice)

(800) 855-1234 (TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of

Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, or call (800) 245-6340

(voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). USDA is an

equal employment opportunity employer.